💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › news › hackrfoe.txt captured on 2020-10-31 at 16:33:13.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
4
Copyright 1986 Ken McLeod
HACKERS: Friend of Foe?
Much has been said and written lately about hackers and their activities.
From attempting to reposition communications satellites to break-ins at
computer facilities throughout the world. Is this just hype? Do these
precocious children really possess the keys to computer disarmament?
I could tell many sexy stories about hacker activity. Computers broken
into, monetary fraud, late night sojourns to computer sites, ad infinitum,
ad nauseum. I don't think salacious stories about highly motivated but
misguided teenagers is the real issue. What is germain is that hackers
represent a real and serious threat to information processing and are a
problem created by society.
Computer security personnel are faced with a modern day Hobson's choice.
Do they ignore the "hackers", or, do the entrench themselves in a Maginot
line of technical ramparts. Either choice may result in serious if not
financially fatal costs to an organization.
Hackers seem to have become steeped in an aura of technological mysticism--
often perceived as the Druids of the Church of Information Processing.
Are video display terminals really their Oracle's? You be the judge!
While the popular belief, at least within the "hacker culture", is to
believe in an embodiment of computers and computer programming for the
greater goal of understanding computer technology, in reality, most
people espousing the "hacker ethic" actually fit quite nicely into the
definition of a criminal.
My "Theory of Hacking" was developed after I arrested more hackers than
probably any other single law enforcement officer and in response to the
inability of anyone else to explaing why hackers "hacked."
Having had the privilege of conducting what was essentially empirical
research while enforcing the law -- numerous hackers were arrested and
interviewed.
During my interviews with the hackers a strange pattern developed which
seemed to be shared by most, if not all of those persons arrested.
"Information may not be owned", was the recurrent theme. Each hacker
seemed determined to rationalize why he, (or rarely "she"), felt it
necessary to commit a criminal act in furtherance of the divine act of
"Information Acquisition." This was strange behavior for a criminal,
at least from the point of view of a traditional law enforcement officer.
Why was the mere "reading" of data contained in a computer so important
in the life of a hacker? What spiritual nirvana was reached when the
ultimate goal has been reached: "Access Granted."
A complete enforcement re-evaluation was required to combat the hacker
problem. A realization came about when traditional views of the value
of information was ignored, i.e. information = money, and a new outlook
adopted: information = value/status/power. While the equations may at
first glance seem equal, the variables of value, status and power have
a much greater meaning among peers.
Hackers, when compared to the public perception of a "common criminal",
are not breaking into computer systems using the same standards as a
conventional burglar (if criminal standards can exist!). A burglar or
robber is usually concerned with simply the monetary value of what he
steals. A hacker tends to have different motives although the end
result may be the same.
In accepting the fact that hackers seek information (usually) not for
its pecuniary value, but for its value as a commodity of status and
reputation, then we have reached the first step in combating hackers.
What was and is really happening is that hackers are merely a logical
metamorphosis of our reliance on the flow and value of data and informa-
tion in our modern society.
Hackers are not some subterranean breed of criminal who has learned the
innermost secrets of the information age. In reality they are our own
technologically created demons.
Modern society has bred a generation of youngsters who have been taught
to communicate and pass information as naturally as eating and sleeping.
These hackers, for they usually are younger, realize that to possess
information is the first step to power; for information in and of itself
denotes power.
It is not illogical that hackers are our own worst nightmares, created
from ignorance and apathy. Hackers are simply eating at the trough of
information which computer managers so eagerly spread throughout society,
To combat hackers two attitudes must be accepted by computer professionals-
- 1) Hackers have been created by society and are a natural extension of
that society; and, 2) Apathy and ambivalence are rampant throughout the
computer field.
Hackers create no new problems, they simply feed on those areas in which
computer designers, operators and managers have failed to protect.
Law Enforcement is faced with serious problems in attempting to
investigate and prosecute hackers. Computer professionals refuse to
identify or report suspected or actual cases of computer crime, for fear
of losing face amongst their peers.
Too often hacker attacks, from inside or outside a company, are considered
personnel problems, rather than crimes. Managers refuse to believe that
some of the employees might acutally fit the hacker mold and fail to act
accordingly.
In November of 1984 one of the first hacker arrests I made was of a 28
year old school teacher. Since that time the ages of suspects or
arrestees has steadily decreased to where we have detected cases of
computer fraud committed by 12 year olds. Attempts to break into
financial, government and private computers are discussed among hackers
as easily as talking about the latest football scores.
Groups of children now regularly control information secretly removed
from the computers of America's largest corporations and government
institutions. Arrests only tend to credentialize the hackers, making them
experts in the eyes of many.
This is disturbing. Are we to create a system of jails for the young
intellectuals on out society? Certainly not! What is the answer?
I believe that two things are going to occur--one a sure bet, the second
worthy of debate. The first is that computer fraud dba "hacker activity"
will continue to increase in both scope and complexity with correspondingly
exponential losses. The second is that computer security professionals will
continue to be slow to come around to accepting the fact that hackers are
a part of the fabric of society and that to be dealt with, they must first
be understood.
Law Enforcement can not be the lone cry in the wilderness, baying for
computer users to safeguard their information. Computer professionals
must proactively protect their systems through a synergistic system of
awareness, acceptance and technical competence. Pseudo-experts and
"reformed hackers" are not the answer. Only through a policy of total
commitment to computer security will the hcaker problem by effectively
dealt with.
z